This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
12
their judgment and discretion. Accordingly, both F ox and Morgan
are immune from liability for allegations of ordina ry negligence
associated with their decisions regarding supervisi ng and
training of subordinate police officers. See Guerr ero v. Deane,
No. 1:09cv1313, 2010 WL 670089, at *13-14 (E.D. Va. Feb. 19,
2010) (unpublished) (finding that the allegations a gainst the
police chief were limited to challenging the ―hiring, training
and supervising [of] his subordinate officers,‖ and that because
the chief ―serves in a high position that involves the exercise
of judgment and discretion and the execution of imp ortant
government functions, [u]nder Messina, sovereign im munity
protects him from liability for negligence committe d in the
exercise‖ of such discretion ); Savage v. County of Stafford,
Va., 754 F. Supp. 2d 809, 817 (E.D. Va. 2010) (quot ing Glasco v.
Ballard, 249 Va. 61, 64-65, 452 S.E.2d 854, 856 (19 95)) ( ―Under
Virginia law, ordinary negligence claims cannot lie against a
law enforcem ent officer who was engaged in ‗ an essential
governmental function involving the exercise of dis cretion and
judgment‘ at the time of the act alleged to be negligent.‖).
Finally, even if Fox and Morgan were not shielded b y
sovereign immunity for ordinary negligence regardin g their
failure to train and/or properly supervise subordin ate officers,
Count Six would be dismissed as to both Fox and Mor gan based on
Plaintiff‘s failure to satisfy the applicable plead ing standard. Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)